9 ms·

This does beg the question that what if we as a collective also encounter these sort of defects. For example on a macro scale based on our vantage point from o

This does beg the question that what if we as a collective also encounter these sort of defects. For example on a macro scale based on our vantage point from our planet we only have a visible and limited line of sight to specific areas of the galaxy and the visible universe. The same could be same for the atomicverse. What if we are incorrectly making assumptions about things because we don’t see the full picture of how things actually are conceived, embarrassingly so. On the magnitude of way far off.

saagarjha 8y ago
> What if we are incorrectly making assumptions about things because we don’t see the full picture of how things actually are conceived, embarrassingly so. This could be true, but I wouldn't call it "embarrassing" to come to flawed conclusions based on inabilities to gather evidence. That's how science works: we do the best with what we have, and continuously try to gather more evidence and refine our theories in response.
- ab5tract 8y ago
  I think that the scientific community at large is so frightened of the shame of being wrong that they cling to obviously flawed concepts like dark matter (how come I never got to just add in a chunk of invisible theoretical force whenever my equations were unbalanced in school, eh?). The fear of embarrassment is a large part of the inertia against scientific revolutions. Furthermore, men hold an inordinate amount of their masculine confidence in their correctness, further exacerbating their ability to admit to being wrong.
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    If your equations don’t balance because of a lack of a coherent and falsifiable theory for why they don’t, I guess you’ve stumbled across one of the big open questions in science. Which is fine, it just means there’s still white spots on the map. Granted, they’re enormous. Still better than jusf giving up and attributing it to a deity.
    - julius_set 8y ago
      Our own optimism drives us to stay evolutionary fit. Which is great for us. I just wish I could see the full picture one day. It’s mind boggling to think everyone who has lived on this planet died with an incomplete picture and understanding about the true nature of the universe.
      - lotis 8y ago
        Okay now get back to work.
    - ab5tract 8y ago
      Who said anything about a deity? My only point is that hubris and embarrassment play a huge role in holding back the evolution of human understanding.
      - m_mueller 8y ago
        Nah I didn't intend to accuse you of that, just that science is the successor model to religion as a way to understanding the world. I guess I don't agree about science 'clinging' to dark energy / dark matter - they're basically placeholders until a more coherent theory comes around, and so far that hasn't happened. I don't think a majority of physicists would bat an eye to wave goodbye to those concepts if it became clear how to do it. Now, that's not saying there isn't a whole lot of dogma in science that should be gotten rid of, I even think that the Kopenhagen interpretation has gotten to a dogmatic point - I just don't think that it applies to cosmology. Plenty of influencial astrophycists have open discussions on this, see e.g. R. Penrose.
        acqq 8y ago
        > they're basically placeholders until a more coherent theory comes around No. https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/theres-a-debate-raging-over-whether-dark-matter-is-real-but-one-side-is-cheating-d25f28319d70 https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/theres-a-debate-raging...
      - 8y ago
  - julius_set 8y ago
    It’s not a gender thing. Although, it’s a mental issue —> narcissism, pride, ego. These traits exist in each and everyone to some scale of a degree. But I agree, as someone who used to be super passionate about research. I would say seeing highly regarded individuals fabricate data and assume wrong assumptions, in order to appear respected and important, did dissuade me and me think of the research industry in a different light, one of a business. There are many smart scientists, and they are working hard. The ones that have the resources and means to influence academic papers, experiments and grants are able to influence particular theories and experiments over others. ️ that can lead some theories, your example dark matter is a perfect example to be more accepted than questioned.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Nobody seems to have a good idea for what we are dealing with other than we have a mysterious extra "force" show up in our observations, so there's no real "shame" in being wrong here because nobody's gotten it right.
    - ab5tract 8y ago
      Sorry, but when the fundamental equations of your cosmological worldview require elaborate “empty patches” and tons of “oh inventing this would really balance the equations” but you refuse to question the underlying assumptions (gravity as the only organizing force, despite being the weakest one we know), then you are not conducting honest science. And that dishonesty runs rampant through every scientific revolution.
- julius_set 8y ago
  There are many instances in history of “embarrassingly,”: • The theory that the earth is not the center of the universe - people persecuted sometimes killed for different assumptions. • Spontaneous generation, the idea that life just arises out of nothing, at the time period this was accepted and other ideas disregarded which led to many lives lost due to disease. • Mental illness assumptions in the past led people to view people with mental illness as possessed by demons, etc. leading to cruel and unusual confinement for these individuals • Lots of other examples I would also propose that when observing our primate ape cousins even the smartest monkey to us appears to be “embarrassingly” putting together a coherent picture of actual reality. Then that proposes an interesting thought experiment. If we encountered an alien species with as much intellectual distance from us as we are to the monkeys, then how would our most innovative theories fare against theirs? I would imagine we would be seen as “embarrassingly,” able to put even a fraction of the puzzle together. We have our senses, and therefore we design our materials and probes to match our senses. Sometimes we can imagine high dimensionality in say the form of a tensor? Sure. Maybe we don’t have a complete picture so we build and optimize tools only related to our own sense processing. What if there are more than our senses, and we are incapable of seeing a deeper image of reality? What if have the senses of a snail as a comparison to an even more advanced species.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    None of those examples you mentioned had a lack of evidence, which is why we changed our perspective on how those things worked. The opposition to them was not scientific.
  - incelmods 8y ago
    this is about science. scientists, by today's definition of the term, were enemies of the church (and still are). other scientists did not burn anyone for saying the earth rotates around the sun, they did not put nails in demented people's heads because "demons," nor did they implement any of the other examples you are thinking of. the rest of your comment is based on the wrong assumption of your start, hence there is no embarrassment for earlier works. Newton was not embarrassed by quantum mechanics.
  - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Pharmakon 8y ago
From Lou Cixin’s ‘The Three-Body Problem’ the “Shooter and Farmer” metaphor seems relevant here. “In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe. The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.” A counterpoint to such an observation is that ideally, scientists understand that they’re working with imperfect and incomplete information. It’s still hard to see the universe from a perspective you don’t inhabit though.

saagarjha 8y ago

> What if we are incorrectly making assumptions about things because we don’t see the full picture of how things actually are conceived, embarrassingly so. This could be true, but I wouldn't call it "embarrassing" to come to flawed conclusions based on inabilities to gather evidence. That's how science works: we do the best with what we have, and continuously try to gather more evidence and refine our theories in response.

ab5tract 8y ago
I think that the scientific community at large is so frightened of the shame of being wrong that they cling to obviously flawed concepts like dark matter (how come I never got to just add in a chunk of invisible theoretical force whenever my equations were unbalanced in school, eh?). The fear of embarrassment is a large part of the inertia against scientific revolutions. Furthermore, men hold an inordinate amount of their masculine confidence in their correctness, further exacerbating their ability to admit to being wrong.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  If your equations don’t balance because of a lack of a coherent and falsifiable theory for why they don’t, I guess you’ve stumbled across one of the big open questions in science. Which is fine, it just means there’s still white spots on the map. Granted, they’re enormous. Still better than jusf giving up and attributing it to a deity.
  - julius_set 8y ago
    Our own optimism drives us to stay evolutionary fit. Which is great for us. I just wish I could see the full picture one day. It’s mind boggling to think everyone who has lived on this planet died with an incomplete picture and understanding about the true nature of the universe.
    - lotis 8y ago
      Okay now get back to work.
  - ab5tract 8y ago
    Who said anything about a deity? My only point is that hubris and embarrassment play a huge role in holding back the evolution of human understanding.
    - m_mueller 8y ago
      Nah I didn't intend to accuse you of that, just that science is the successor model to religion as a way to understanding the world. I guess I don't agree about science 'clinging' to dark energy / dark matter - they're basically placeholders until a more coherent theory comes around, and so far that hasn't happened. I don't think a majority of physicists would bat an eye to wave goodbye to those concepts if it became clear how to do it. Now, that's not saying there isn't a whole lot of dogma in science that should be gotten rid of, I even think that the Kopenhagen interpretation has gotten to a dogmatic point - I just don't think that it applies to cosmology. Plenty of influencial astrophycists have open discussions on this, see e.g. R. Penrose.
      - acqq 8y ago
        > they're basically placeholders until a more coherent theory comes around No. https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/theres-a-debate-raging-over-whether-dark-matter-is-real-but-one-side-is-cheating-d25f28319d70 https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/theres-a-debate-raging...
    - 8y ago
- julius_set 8y ago
  It’s not a gender thing. Although, it’s a mental issue —> narcissism, pride, ego. These traits exist in each and everyone to some scale of a degree. But I agree, as someone who used to be super passionate about research. I would say seeing highly regarded individuals fabricate data and assume wrong assumptions, in order to appear respected and important, did dissuade me and me think of the research industry in a different light, one of a business. There are many smart scientists, and they are working hard. The ones that have the resources and means to influence academic papers, experiments and grants are able to influence particular theories and experiments over others. ️ that can lead some theories, your example dark matter is a perfect example to be more accepted than questioned.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Nobody seems to have a good idea for what we are dealing with other than we have a mysterious extra "force" show up in our observations, so there's no real "shame" in being wrong here because nobody's gotten it right.
  - ab5tract 8y ago
    Sorry, but when the fundamental equations of your cosmological worldview require elaborate “empty patches” and tons of “oh inventing this would really balance the equations” but you refuse to question the underlying assumptions (gravity as the only organizing force, despite being the weakest one we know), then you are not conducting honest science. And that dishonesty runs rampant through every scientific revolution.
julius_set 8y ago
There are many instances in history of “embarrassingly,”: • The theory that the earth is not the center of the universe - people persecuted sometimes killed for different assumptions. • Spontaneous generation, the idea that life just arises out of nothing, at the time period this was accepted and other ideas disregarded which led to many lives lost due to disease. • Mental illness assumptions in the past led people to view people with mental illness as possessed by demons, etc. leading to cruel and unusual confinement for these individuals • Lots of other examples I would also propose that when observing our primate ape cousins even the smartest monkey to us appears to be “embarrassingly” putting together a coherent picture of actual reality. Then that proposes an interesting thought experiment. If we encountered an alien species with as much intellectual distance from us as we are to the monkeys, then how would our most innovative theories fare against theirs? I would imagine we would be seen as “embarrassingly,” able to put even a fraction of the puzzle together. We have our senses, and therefore we design our materials and probes to match our senses. Sometimes we can imagine high dimensionality in say the form of a tensor? Sure. Maybe we don’t have a complete picture so we build and optimize tools only related to our own sense processing. What if there are more than our senses, and we are incapable of seeing a deeper image of reality? What if have the senses of a snail as a comparison to an even more advanced species.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  None of those examples you mentioned had a lack of evidence, which is why we changed our perspective on how those things worked. The opposition to them was not scientific.
- incelmods 8y ago
  this is about science. scientists, by today's definition of the term, were enemies of the church (and still are). other scientists did not burn anyone for saying the earth rotates around the sun, they did not put nails in demented people's heads because "demons," nor did they implement any of the other examples you are thinking of. the rest of your comment is based on the wrong assumption of your start, hence there is no embarrassment for earlier works. Newton was not embarrassed by quantum mechanics.
- 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Pharmakon 8y ago

From Lou Cixin’s ‘The Three-Body Problem’ the “Shooter and Farmer” metaphor seems relevant here. “In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe. The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.” A counterpoint to such an observation is that ideally, scientists understand that they’re working with imperfect and incomplete information. It’s still hard to see the universe from a perspective you don’t inhabit though.